Yarnicopia

Yahoo! Answers: Search for
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Yahoo! Answers: Search for

Resolved Question: In a section often quoted by theologians/apologists, Stephen Hawking struggles with real vs. imaginary time.?
WHAT DO YOU THINK HAWKING WAS TRYING TO RESOLVE IN HIS OWN MIND? Among his contradictory statements in A Brief History of Time, Hawking conceded: "When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities . . . ," "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science breaks down"(p. 139). Only if we live in imaginary time would we encounter no singularities. Obviously, his meaning has implications for Creation and a Creator, ideas which even as an agnostic, Hawking seems to be fascinated by (or at least, figures it would fascinate his readers and increase sales of his book.) ==================================================================== ==================================================================== ==================================================================== OPTIONAL BROADER CONTEXT WITHIN ANOTHER SCIENTIST'S ANALYSIS OF HAWKING; EXCERPT from http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9501/bigbang2.html Hawking's No Boundary Proposal Let us return to Hawking's no boundary proposal-the universe as a wave function, popping into existence 15-20 billion years ago. The use of imaginary time is a powerful mathematical trick that is used on occasion by theoretical chemists and physicists. My best friend at Berkeley, William Miller, in 1969 used imaginary time to understand the dynamics of chemical reactions and it made him a household word. It is a powerful tool. In Hawking and Hartle's no boundary proposal, the notion that the universe has neither beginning nor end is something that exists in mathematical terms only. In real time, which is what we as human beings are confined to rather than in Hawking's use of imaginary time, there will always be a singularity, that is, a beginning of time. Among his contradictory statements in A Brief History of Time, Hawking actually concedes this. "When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities . . . ," he wrote. "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science breaks down"(p. 139). Only if we live in imaginary time would we encounter no singularities. So here he has really answered his own question. Science is primarily concerned with facts, not motive, and thus a complete scientific description of the creation does not rule out a providential account at the same time. William Paley's famous argument suggests that if you're taking a walk in the woods and you find a watch on the path, you don't conclude that the watch just assembled itself, despite the fact that we can take the watch apart, look at every single part and completely understand how it works. We look at the watch on the path and we prudently conclude that it was designed by some higher intelligence. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking states, "If the no boundary proposal is correct, he [God] had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions"(p. 174). This statement is a leap into irrationality. Why does Hawking find, within the functioning of the universe, aspects that appear to him to be limitations of God's power? This stems not from any attitude of an infinite God, but rather from the attributes of finite man. Namely, we as human beings are able to scientifically discern characteristics of the Creator only as they are related to that which is created, that which we can observe. This limitation of ours immediately reduces what might be infinite to the finiteness of our existence. Of course Biblically there is no problem in accepting divine constraints to divine option, if the Creator chooses to run the universe according to His stated and established laws. Divine tenacity to His own laws is, of course, the very essence of the Biblical God. Another of Hawking's controversial statements needs to be addressed. Although it is not original with him, it is this: "We are such insignificant creatures on a minor planet of a very average star in the outer suburb of one of a hundred billion galaxies. So it is difficult to believe in a God that would care about us or even notice our existence." My response to that statement by Hawking, and to others that have said this over the years, is that that's a silly thing to say. There isn't any evidence to date that life exists anywhere else in the universe. Human beings, thus far, appear to be the most advanced species in the universe. Maybe God does care about us! Where Hawking surveys the cosmos and concludes that man's defining characteristic is obscurity, I consider the same data and conclude that humankind is very special. ================================ FYI: Apparently some are assuming that I wrote what appears on the website cited and in the quoted excerpt. I AM NOT THE AUTHOR. And even my "summary" in the preface is based on the author's summary. =================================== As always, the reading comprehension of some of the respondents is appalling. ONCE AGAIN, I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OF THE QUOTED MATERIAL. The quoted material is from the writings of Henry F. Schaefer III, a Nobel Prize nominee who is chemistry professor and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia.
Resolved Question: What ails me with the Republican party/conservative politics.?
I find conservative politics to be driven more by emotional soundbite than intelligent or logical reasoning. I find many principles to be very hypocritical, or even contradictory, to other claimed principles, and I'm troubled by this discrepancy. As a whole, I'm philosophically and practically very against this notion of "the way it is." It's NEVER been "the way it is" for very long, so defending the current status quo is actually defending the newest form of politics and society in our history. It doesn't make much sense to be so anti progress and anti change if you expect to get anywhere better or new, and things certainly aren't ideal now, nor have they been. Think of this logically- would an ideal society or utopia look anything like conservative philosophy? Probably not. What makes you think our moral sense is fully developed? It's a good thing liberals were around between our time and the time of the romans, else we'd still be hosting public executions and gladiator spectacles for amusement. Society needs evolution to improve. The "way it is now" isn't "the way it's meant to be", everyone thought that of their time, and as we know, things can be much better. How do you expect to improve? You also tend to confuse liberalism with whatever the democratic party is doing, and to some that may be accurate, but to most, it's not. The democratic party is a political party, not a philosophical code on how to live. It's still a machine , makes many mistakes, and often times makes things much worse. True progressivism would look beyond the platform of a party into new possibilities altogether, so the democratic party is definitely not the ideal blueprint. Actually, much of what it does is very anti-liberal in the sense that it only hurts the principles from becoming reality. You also seem to believe liberals aren't realists. That isn't true. Liberals know that the government can't go around solving every problem, but they do feel it can help, and when used correctly, can be a powerful tool. Liberals do understand that their picture of an ideal world isn't always whats going to happen, so things like the military and private propertyprotection are necessary. Liberals don't ignore reality. I have a big problem with the values claimed by the conservative right and the Christian right. You claim to be the more morally sound party, yet seem to follow very little of what your religion teaches. "Sell everything you own and give to the poor" doesn't mean let the poor be poor and rich be rich. Now I don't suggest handing out everything for free, but ask yourself what the real moral value is in having such a sharp refusal to aid those without. Liberals ,as a whole, tend to hold ideas of peace, tolerance, and generosity far more than conservatives to. Conservatives seem to skip the logical thinking process when evaluating long term problems. On the surface, the obvious answer may not be the right answer. Some issues require a little bit of thinking, rather than just demanding a source a back a claim. A few notes: Gays are born that way. Seriously, rather than demand a source, think logically. Who would choose discrimination? They're humans, and deserve equal rights. Global warming is accepted by over 90% of mainstream scientists from across the world. Seriously, they're ALL lying? Defending a nation is improtant, but invading every country at whim isn't going to solve the problem. It's probably going to make it worse.